Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Undo-summary/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

How's this?

$1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) [[WP:EAS|undone]]

I think the fewer nouns we use, the easier it will be to reach a consensus version--162.84.217.206 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I'm not putting {{editprotected}} here yet because I'm not sure, but what do people think about the possibility of having a WP:AES arrow on here to show it's an autosummary? --ais523 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Seriously, "Undid"? What was wrong with Undo? Undo is a verb, Undid isn't even in the right tense--172.165.169.16 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm... "undo" does sound a bit better to me, too, although most reversion scripts use "reverted" in their summaries, so if we're interested in keeping consistency with our tenses... anyway, what do others think? Luna Santin 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"←Reverted revision _________ by Username (talk) using 'undo'" would be the best wording IMO -137.222.10.67 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:137.222.10.67's proposal; here's the updated wording: 

[[WP:AES|←]]Reverted revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) using [[Help:Reverting#Undo|undo]]

The only change from that anon's proposal is that I've removed the quotes around 'undo'. --ais523 10:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Done. Proto::► 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to add some custom edit summary text at the end when using undo, but recent changes are making me struggle with the character limit. I'd prefer a much more concise message, code-wise. –Gunslinger47 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand version numbers, but would find it useful to see at a glance which author's version has been reverted to, e.g. last version by user:X. Just a thought. MikeHobday 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Centrx
1. Why did you remove the WP:AES-linking arrow?
2. I don't object to your wording, but why did you unilaterally overrule the decision reached on the talk page without even participating in the discussion?
3. What do you mean by "This is /not/ a revert, "Reverted" is simply false."? On the English Wikipedia, undoing a change (even if this doesn't affect the entire page) is defined as "reverting," and this is a good fact to convey. (I've seen numerous editors claim that they didn't violate the 3RR because they manually replaced part of the text instead of "reverting.") —David Levy 14:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The WP:AES-linking arrow was for situations where the user could make some change to the page where an edit summary would be automatically and unknowingly supplied. This does not make sense for rollback, because rollback requires a knowing admin to click on a link, and it makes even less sense for undo, because not only is the editor clicking on a link, but the automatically supplied edit summary is displayed in the edit summary box before the change is even made.
2. The edit summary a participation in the discussion. I could have copied the edit summary to the talk page, but that would seem to be rather redundant. I could have brought the matter up without making any edit, but the change reversed is a brand new one and the talk page discussants appeared not to have previously considered the objections (and so, as is fairly common, would agree with them without even needing any discussion).
3. Reverting does, very uncommonly, refer to reversing some old change, though most of the time it is exactly a revert of the recent-most changes. The misunderstanding is correct considering the general meaning and common use of the word, it just does not precisely fit with 3RR's special use of it. If someone is making a single edit the undoes something from a month ago, that is not reverting. For 3RR, however, they must be doing it multiple times for recent edits. The situations are much different, and it is misleading to someone looking at the page history for the summary to say "Reverted". The developers knew the word "Reverted", but it would not make sense for someone to click on the "revert" button for some old edit or for the edit summary to say "Reverted", against the common meaning of the word—and the only meaning of the word in page histories. —Centrx→talk • 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I disagree. While it's less likely that someone responsible for such an edit would be unaware of the summary's existence, it remains likely that inexperienced editors will sometimes accidentally misuse this function (because they don't understand how it works, mistakenly believe that its use is appropriate, or are simply testing it out). Without any indication to the contrary, it appears that the user definitely knows exactly what he/she is doing (and most likely has installed an unidentified automation script).
2. Your summary was cut off and didn't fully explain your changes.
3. I agree that there is confusion regarding the conflicting terminology (and that it probably is wise to avoid using the term in this summary), but I dispute your assertion that the previous wording was incorrect. —David Levy 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
1. The AES arrow makes perfect sense. It's an automatic edit summary. Simple as that.
2. Please don't do that. Talk page, then edit, particularly on permanently protected templates where people can't revert. It's a very thin line.
3. See WP:REVERT - "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past.". It's correct. [[WP:AES|←]]Reverted revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) via [[Help:Reverting#Undo|undo]] is simply a clearer message and links to what Undo and Reverting /is/. "Undid" also sounds horrible and isn't a word used in Wikipedia normally. -Halo 17:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Undo doesn't revert all changes, it removes one revision, and does not touch any subsequent revisions. Prodego talk 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict with Prodego] But undo doesn't "undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past" — it undoes the changes made in ONE particular revision, regardless of what has been added or deleted since. They're two entirely different concepts. Also, this wasn't the original intent of WP:AES at all, but I don't really have a problem with it in this case, I guess. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I agree that using the word "reverted" in this context is confusing (despite the fact that the English Wikipedia applies a definition that isn't limited to restoring a previous page version in its entirety), and I agree with its removal.
2. I created and linked to the WP:AES page to address the mistaken belief (reported by numerous users) that vandals were mocking the community by deliberately describing their edits via summaries. (In fact, many of these edits were well-meaning tests.) The link serves exactly the same purpose here, so I disagree that it contradicts the original intent. —David Levy 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
When I said WP:AES, I meant the actual automatic application of edit summaries for the 4 types edits it does it for, not necessarily the project page outlining what it does. In this case, it's not really "automatic" (as those 4 are), it's more of a "default", as the user can change it to whatever he/she wants. But like I said, I don't really have a problem with it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Undo revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]])

What was wrong with this version?--162.84.217.206 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How about

[[WP:AES|←]]Revision $1 undone by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]])

It's better grammar than the other options floating around. Proto::► 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

$2 is the author of the edit being undone, not the undoer, so that would need some tweaking. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Howsabout:
[[WP:AES|←]]Revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) has been undone.
Yes? No? Proto::► 15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

(Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to figure out where to contribute to this conversation, so I've created a new section). Personally, I dislike the use of the word 'undid' in an edit summary. I normally write edit summaries in the present tense, and use heavy abbreviation. To me, 'reverted' looks fine, but 'undid' looks strange (and other people disagree with 'undo', and I can see why). One point in favour of using 'reverted' is that it's the summary used by most of the auto-revert tools, including rollback; if an admin removes vandalism, the summary doesn't say 'Rollback 1 edit...'. (Strangely enough, I was collecting reversion edit summaries a while ago as part of the work I was doing on my edit counter, so there's an incomplete list on User:Ais523/revertsum; manual reverts normally say 'rv' or 'rev', and automatic reverts say 'Reverted' or 'Revert to revision' (although AntiVandalBot uses 'rv').) I don't care too much about the AES arrow; I would prefer if they were greatly expanded to cover all autosummaries, including admin rollback (and with other symbols for bot and script edits), but if people don't agree with that I wouldn't mind it being removed from this message for consistency. --ais523 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't understand why "undid" looks strange. It's a normal word in the English language, and all of our other software-generated edit summaries are written in the past tense. To me, "undo" seems strange, as it comes across as a future-tense instruction. ("Undoing" would seem more natural, but it still would be inconsistent with our other summaries.)
2. We now have a "b" marker for bot edits.
3. The AES arrow's purpose is to inform users that the accompanying edit summary may have been provided accidentally by an inexperienced user (and is not a deliberate description of the apparent vandalism that if often accompanies). In my opinion, you were correct to propose that the setup be expanded to include MediaWiki:Undo-summary, as the potential exists for the same sort of misunderstanding to occur. Administrators, however, are experienced and unlikely to be mistaken for vandals. —David Levy 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the issue here is whether an undo is sufficiently close to a revert that they should use the same or similar edit summaries ('rv', 'rev', 'reverted' or 'revert' are used for almost all non-undo reverts). Undoing the top revision is nothing but a revert, so it seems slightly surprising that people want a substantially different edit summary than when reverting by hand, by rollback, or by script (the 'reverted ... using undo' summary that was the result of the editprotected above would be an example of a substantially similar summary). Undoing a deeper revision, however, is not a revert in the sense of go-to-the-history-click-on-the-date-edit-and-save, but a new operation. Originally, undo was only usable in such cases (undoing through intermediate edits); the feature to use an 'undo' link in the same place as a revert was added after discussion on wikitech-l (and there were even plans to program it a different way). In such cases, I would always use 'undo' in my summary before the autosummary was adopted (but different people use different tenses in their edit summaries). Before undo was implemented, my edit summaries would normally have read 'rm old vandalism' (I don't recall ever undoing a blanking by hand, so the edit would be a removal rather than a restoration). The other important point to my mind is that although 'undo' is a verb in English, it's being used as a noun to name the feature; I've never seen 'rollback' written in the past tense (as 'rolled back', presumably), and that would look equally odd in the edit summary to me. So the question is: Does 'undo' do a revert, or an undo; does it revert something, or undo it; does it undo, or did it undo? --ais523 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A few options, there are a crapload:

  1. Undid revision X by user Y
  2. Revision X by user Y has been undone
  3. Undo - revision X by user Y
  4. Undone - revision X by user Y
  5. Undoing revision X (by user Y)
  6. User Y's revision (X) has been undone
  7. Revision X from user Y removed via undo

Can't think of any one perfect answer. Proto::► 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In option 7, there's no such page as m:Undo; I've changed the link to the en copy of Meta's page about reverting. --ais523 11:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic edit summary

The undo summary is unlike any of the other summaries listed at WP:AES. The user confirms the change in question, sees the edit summary before committing the change, the user can change the edit summary and in so doing should not be required to specially delete parts of it to make it even accurate. With page blanking, replacement, creation, and redirection, the user does not confirm the change, has no opportunity to change the edit summary after seeing that one has been automatically supplied, and is not presented with any filled-in edit summary at all to delete.

There is no opportunity for the "accidental misuse" of the undo function because a diff is displayed when undoing any change, i.e. even if they did not understand how it works when they clicked the "undo" button, the exact change that is being made is displayed after they click it. —Centrx→talk • 15:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that the individual in question has a basic understanding of what a wiki is and how it works. That is not a safe assumption. —David Levy 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of edits by people who use the undo link in the page history do. Most of the people who do not understand how a wiki works have not figured out about the page history, and do not click mysterious "undo"; even if they do, they are not making multiple edits. The AES is to prevent people from incorrectly assuming that the person purposefully made the edit, but they did purposefully click on the "undo" link, and they did see the diff, and the summary regardless does describe what happened accurately. I see almost zero or zero advantage here, but it does create work for the numerous people who do use the undo link frequently. If the AES is supposed to indicate whether an edit or a summary was purposeful or not, its use here is mostly inaccurate: the edits are purposeful and furthermore verified. —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The arrow link is not supposed to indicate whether an edit or a summary was purposeful or not. It's supposed to indicate that the summary was generated (in whole or in part) automatically. The idea is to inform people that the edit/summary might have been unintentional, not that it definitely was. Therefore, there's absolutely no harm in displaying the arrow link in all cases (unless it's manually removed). It merely represents the fact that this is a MediaWiki-assisted summary (as opposed to something that the user typed entirely on his/her own). —David Levy 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The harm is for the cases where the user does not want the arrow because it is misleading to imply that it was not a desired edit summary and because it consumed limited space there. Almost every use of the "undo" feature has no need whatsoever for the AES, and for the cases where the person was wiki-naive and somehow clicked thed page history, then clicked a revision diff, then clicked undo, then missed the diff and the edit summary box, all the while not having any idea what he was doing or that he was implementing a change, the AES still does not have the advantages as in the other summaries, e.g. not implying that vandalism had taunting or an experiment or test was in full knowledge. —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the arrow does not imply that the edit summary was not desired. The link consumes very little space (and is easily removable in a rare case in which those 12 extra characters are needed).
Regardless, it just occurred to me that we could simply make the word "undid" a link to WP:UNDO instead. Is that acceptable? —David Levy 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's much better. —Centrx→talk • 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to redirect page "WP:UNDO"

I feel that pointing the link to the destination page is better than pointing it to a redirect. Any opinion? --Deryck C. 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Help:Reverting#Undo instead of WP:UNDO would consume 12 additional characters. —David Levy 05:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Asking both the client and the server to parse two pages at a time will consume each of them far more than 12 additional character's capacity. --Deryck C. 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That isn't the issue. (The developers have stated that even heavily used redirects have a negligible impact on the servers, and there certainly isn't a noticeable client-side performance difference.) The issue is that 12 fewer characters would be available for the edit summary. —David Levy 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The client-side difference is significant when the internet connection is slow. Though, I'm convinced with your reasoning that we should leave more space for the editor to write his/her additional comments. --Deryck C. 07:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've used slow Internet connections and never noticed such a difference. Why would one exist? —David Levy 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it would. The redirection is done on the server side. —Centrx→talk • 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the edit summary be more like:

"Revert revision $1 by $2 ($2)

instead of having it to be "Undid"? 68.5.224.107 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "undid" is easier to understand. Newcomers don't really get the meaning of "revert" for the first few times they see it. --Deryck C. 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read the above discussions, 68.5.224.107. —David Levy 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, an undo is not the same as a revert. —Centrx→talk • 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Different syntactic or procedural meaning, but same input, same output. --Deryck C. 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, an undo is only one revision which may be anywhere in the history whereas a revert may be any number of revisions that are most recent in the history. —Centrx→talk • 03:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

  • In the interest of saving characters, if we are going to use a redirect we should use a single char redirect, 3 extra characters could be very useful, I just had a situation where just two more characters were all I needed. Since the redirect title does not really need to make sense as people wont be typing it in I propose the link go to something like WP:" which would be redirected to Wikipedia:UNDO#Undo. Icewedge (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) --> [[WP:"|Undid]] revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) will save three characters. Icewedge (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done you may want to check to ensure the edit conforms to your standards. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Well, it seems that L'Aquatique's edit was not registered (I would guess that she copy-pasted the wrong the code and thus the edit was null). Can someone else do it; replace the page with [[WP:"|Undid]] revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) Icewedge (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Gave it a shot - seems to have worked ;) SkierRMH (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I added a note at Wikipedia talk:Ц because I, for one, wondered what in the world a 'Ц' was doing there. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 07:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure you know cyrillic letters take up more bytes... — CharlotteWebb 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about bytes, it's about the length of the edit summary and how that's limited by the browser. browsers limit the length by the number of characters, not the number of bytes. —lensovet–talk – 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've restored the "UNDO" pending more discussion; there have been enough concerns raised to warrant sorting this out first. --Ckatzchatspy 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the village pump discussion, I support the reversion to WP:UNDO, as I believe that keeping the link's target recognizable is more important than increasing the available edit summary characters by three. And as PrimeHunter pointed out in that thread, it's possible to edit the default message when additional space is needed. —David Levy 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The WhatLinksHere list doesn't include the countless edit summaries containing the link. And what harm is it causing? For shortcuts, the inclusion threshold is very low. (Also, RfD would be the correct forum for such a deletion nomination.) —David Levy 01:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
RfD is generally for discussions related to page moves, which is why I specified MfD. — Athaenara ✉ 02:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
RfD is the designated forum for the proposed deletion of redirects. Are you confusing it with WP:RM, or are you referring to redirects stemming from page moves? —David Levy 02:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I support nominating it on redirects for discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Why? You aren't explaining what harm it's causing or why you wish to break many edit summaries. —David Levy 11:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The WP:Ц redirect and its installation in default English language Wikipedia rollback edit summaries looked like a prank à la April Fool or Halloween to me, frankly.
However, with the reasoning that it was used in some of those summaries during the very few days it was installed, its unassailability has been flagged here and here with a {{go away}} template. — Athaenara ✉ 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Frankly I'm surprised that people even noticed, when you click the link you are taken directly to a section on the page and don't even see the "redirect from x" line and for the few people who notice and do care, they can easily read the explanation of the talk page. But meh, 3 chars is not worth a fight. Icewedge (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision # in edit summary

When you undo an edit, the summary states you undid revision 259529195 (or whatever). Yet the edit history does not list revisions by numbers, so it is impossible to really know which revision is actually "revision 259529195". This seems to make the use of a revision number in the edit summary rather unnecessary. It seems then the edit history should have listed a revision number (similar to number of bytes of the article for each revision). Either that, or instead of a revision number in the edit summary, a date should be used. Thoughts? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Space available for edit summary when using undo

Those who might visit this page might be interested in my proposal here. Kevin McE (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing info on revision numbers

When someone uses the undo link, the automatic summary confusingly uses an unexplained, mysterious revision number instead of the time stamp of the reverted edit. This often makes it very hard or impossible to find the reverted edit in the history. This should be changed:

  • the revision numbers should be displayed next to each edit
  • the automatic undo summaries should at least also display the time stamp or only that
  • the automatic summary should include a link showing the difference between the versions

--Espoo (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the above from Help talk:Page history#missing info on revision numbers. I agree it's annoying that the edit can be hard to find if it's not the previous. I sometimes hover my mouse over previous time stamps to look for the revision ID in the url which ends with something like oldid=652046765. If you know the revision ID 652046765 then you can also get the diff directly. One way: Enter "special:diff/652046765" in the search box. Another way: Enter a suitable url with diff=652046765 in the browser address bar. You can for example click a random diff in the page history to get something like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Page_history&diff=639852136&oldid=639805505, and manually change the end to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Page_history&diff=652046765. But the current options are cumbersome. The only parameters currently available for the message are revision ID and username (see translatewiki:MediaWiki:Undo-summary/qqq). A software change last year (gerrit:63395) made it possible to make wikilinks to diffs in edit summaries. I suggest changing Undid revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) to Undid revision [[Special:Diff/$1|$1]] by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]). This for example means "Undid revision 652046765 by Espoo (talk)" would change to "Undid revision 652046765 by Espoo (talk)". The total length of the edit summary can be at most 255 bytes. The suggested version would add 27 one-byte characters to the automatic part so 27 less would be available for the user, unless they remove part of the automatic part. The edit being undone is usually the previous and a link is not important in that case, but it can be good for older revisions and the message doesn't know whether it's an old edit. If you want the time to be available for the edit summary then it requires a software change which can be requested at phabricator:, but the time would be displayed in UTC and not the reader's time zone – unless a more complicated software change is made and I don't expect that to happen. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I see Espoo has also started a dicussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#revision numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If length of the automatic summary is a concern then a linked diff like Special:Diff/652046765 has links to the contributions and talk page of the reverted user, so those links become less important in the edit summary. Undid revision [[Special:Diff/$1|$1]] by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) could be shortened to for example Undid revision [[Special:Diff/$1|$1]] by $2 which is much shorter than the original. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ц listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ц. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Can IPv6 addresses be lowercased?

Is there a way to make IPv6 addresses be written in lower case (to make them less wide on screen as well as less shouty) without affecting equally long registered usernames? --Pipetricker (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Lowercase IPv6 addresses currently don't work with Gadget-contribsrange. --Pipetricker (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 uses 194 of 255 characters

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T6715

At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 119#IPv6 IPs I brought up that IPv6 addresses use 194 of the 255 available characters, only leaving 61 to explain the revert. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just ran into this. If you look in [1], I undid an IPv6 edit, but wanted to explain why I undid it, which required some severe trimming to the standard message. I worry that the very long default message will discourage edit summaries, which will lead to IP users not learning why their edits were undone. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I have run into this issue too. It's not ideal, but you can make a dummy edit to explain the revert. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This was brought up today at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit summaries when reverting edits made by IPv6 users. I have changed MediaWiki:Undo-summary to Undid revision $1 by [[User:$2]] for IPv6 addresses and usernames above 25 characters.[2] I included a userpage link so you can quickly get to the talk page or user contributions from there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hm, it is shorter, but why not just have it as [[Special:Contributions/*IP address here*]] (without the pipe). Slightly longer, but the redlinks on our own contributions pages are kind of ugly. Plus, it's nice to be able to leap right to contributions if undoing vandalism. Often one bad edit that was caught has some earlier ones that were missed on other articles. But thank you for doing SOMETHING. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Please fix to link the contribs. The user page is unhelpful, and I often see people (including myself) reverting IPs in my watchlist (or my cotribs), and I want to check whether that IP has done more since the revert. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. Gatemansgc (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I have changed it to Undid revision $1 by [[Special:Contributions/$2]].[3] It sounds odd when "Special:Contributions/" is displayed but may be the lesser evil as I said at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit summaries when reverting edits made by IPv6 users. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The contributions page can be used to find the userpage and talk page, but not fully the other way around (the userpage can find the talk page, but not the contributions page). Gatemansgc (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
All userspace pages have a "User contributions" link under "Tools" in the left pane (not in the mobile version). PrimeHunter (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

phabricator: Allow comments longer than 255 bytes

When I brought up the IPv6 thing at WP:VPT, the Phabricator task to allow longer edit summaries and other tasks related to that were posted:

T6715: Allow comments longer than 255 bytes

Also noting that this issue of course affects undoing edits by any user with a very long username, not just IPv6 users. --Pipetricker (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Can we revert this change given that the edit summary length has been extended? Nihlus 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we wait for the result of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Turn off extended edit summaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 146#Turn off extended edit summaries.
--Pipetricker (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the change.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2020

--abort --quit 2600:6C52:477F:FF3E:3CB2:ACF9:F34:BB9B (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Undo-summary/Archive_1&oldid=1212587812"